It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Pentagon acknowledges fabricating a 'Zarqawi Legend'

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I think what we have here is the Iraqi's standing up for their country... something that if publicized would destroy US civillian support for the US war on iraq.

Zarqawi was fabricated to be the target to allow US citizens to believe that there is some "EVIL FORCE" driving the Iraqi's to fight the "Glorious Americans".

Whereas in reality... its everyday people standing up for their country as you and I would if we were invaded.

If the media had reported : "US invasion forces met fierce resistance from the residing citizens of the cities they entered" The support for the war would be gone instantly... and the US would probably have a civil war on their own hands.

... hmm...

okay, time to start broadcasting exactly that me thinks...




posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Isn't the title of this thread dangerously close to posting false information?


The source article speculates on Zarqawi existence, but fails to make any case for his non-existence.

Neither article confirms that, as the title of the thread would have you believe, the pentagon admits no such thing as Zarqawi.

In true "prisonplanet" style the source article picks a few sentences it likes and ignores the full context of the WP article. Here's a few more from the WP to put the PSYOP comments in context.


Washington Post

There has been a running argument among specialists in Iraq about how much significance to assign to Zarqawi, who spent seven years in prison in Jordan for attempting to overthrow the government there. After his release he spent time in Pakistan and Afghanistan before moving his base of operations to Iraq. He has been sentenced to death in absentia for planning the 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan. U.S. authorities have said he is responsible for dozens of deaths in Iraq and have placed a $25 million bounty on his head.

. . .


"There was no attempt to manipulate the press," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the U.S. military's chief spokesman when the propaganda campaign began in 2004, said in an interview Friday. "We trusted Dexter to write an accurate story, and we gave him a good scoop."

. . .

"When we provided stuff, it was all in Arabic," and aimed at the Iraqi and Arab media, said another military officer familiar with the program, who spoke on background because he is not supposed to speak to reporters.

But this officer said that the Zarqawi campaign "probably raised his profile in the American press's view."


So lets see.

Zarqawi is real and not made up by the pentagon.

A propaganda effort was undertaken, aimed at the Iraqi people to give a face to the insurgency.

It went too far and possibly exagerated Zarqawi's role in the US media.


No where in the WP article does it provide any evidence to the source articles conclusion.


The Pentagon documents leaked to the Washington Post regarding Zarqawi have revealed that Al Qaeda in Iraq is fabricated.


So I can only assume they are pulling that one out of their backside.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Why is this false and misleading thread title allowed to remain on ATS? It has no basis in fact.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Admitting that they exaggerated the threat is as good as saying the threat of Zarqawi doesn't exsist in magnitude that they have construed. There's no such thing as Santa Clause, but there was a St. Nicolas and it isn't any more innacurate to say that Santa doesn't exsist is it? Ah but that's ok because it doesn't fringe on your right wing line towing?
If the title of this thread makes you so angry, then you should ask yourself why you are so easily angered. I agree that the title of thread is a bit of a hyperbole, but there are more than a few instances of misleading titles in the world like The Patriot Act, or Home Made Flavor. Do those anger you as easily?



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Admitting that they exaggerated the threat is as good as saying the threat of Zarqawi doesn't exsist in magnitude that they have construed.


In my opinion it is, however it does not mean that there is no threat from Zarqawi or that he isn't real. That’s all I've been trying to say from post one.


Originally posted by The Links
That is indeed relevant if somebody claims Zarquawi is not real, i don't hear such claim.


It is true that not all have asserted such, you haven't, however the original poster as hinted by the tile and several others seem to strongly suggest that this is the case. Continue reading my post and you will see such an example.


Originally posted by Code_Burger
See?

Could you please stop putting words into my mouth that I didn't say (or type), and could you please stop #ing twisting the things that I actually did say. "According to me", I don't know if Zarqawi is real, in Iraq, or any kind of threat to anyone at all, and neither do you. That's what this whole argument is about, remember? Have you cracked your head open recently or something?


I wasn't trying to twist you words, I only asked you for your views on Zarqawi. This thread is not about whether Zarqawi exists or not, its about how big of a threat he is. Are you one of the few who along with the original poster seem to think otherwise?



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23This thread is not about whether Zarqawi exists or not, its about how big of a threat he is. Are you one of the few who along with the original poster seem to think otherwise?


Zarqawi is a man who most likely engages in insurgent activities in Iraq. This thread is about how the Pentagon used the image of Zarqawi for political reasons to garner more support for the war in Iraq and liken it to the war on "Terror." This is not some mistake where the Pentagon over-emphasized the threat of Zarqawi. The Pentagon purposely and consciously mislead the world over the threat of Zarqawi. They mislead you, they mislead me, they essentially treated us as little toys to play around with using pyschological operations. They believe that we are not fit for the truth and must be manipulated to support the war they are undertaking in Iraq.

If they are willing to manipulate us in this context, how many other times do you think they have manipulated us, witheld or distorted the truth for us, for political aims? Are we not worthy enough of respect that they are justified in outright lying to us?

[edit on 23-4-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

"Through aggressive Strategic Communications, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi now represents: Terrorism in Iraq/Foreign Fighters in Iraq/Suffering of Iraqi People (Infrastructure Attacks)/Denial of Iraqi Aspirations," the same briefing asserts.


The title of this thread is OK.
The article is talking about a major and very expensive mud job on Zarqawi to paint him as a supervilain and exclusive fall guy for all the suffering of Iraqi people. So there is no such thing as Zarqawi, the superterrorist.
Must admit, fancy editorial job there Syrian Sister.



Originally posted by Code_Burger
Have you cracked your head open recently or something?


Reality is Westys Kriptonyte, so he has to bent it a little to keep him flying.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
I agree that the title of thread is a bit of a hyperbole, but there are more than a few instances of misleading titles in the world like The Patriot Act, or Home Made Flavor. Do those anger you as easily?

Trying to justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior? The thread title is not Home Made Flavor or the Patriot Act.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
If they are willing to manipulate us in this context, how many other times do you think they have manipulated us, witheld or distorted the truth for us, for political aims?


That is a good question, and frankly one I cannot answer, and guessing or speculating about it is pointless. My main issue is that the title of this thread is false and that the topic of discussion is how much of a threat Zarqawi really is.


Originally posted by yanchek
The title of this thread is OK.


How so? Nowhere on the presented information accompanying the post is such asserted.

[edit on 23-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
the topic of discussion is how much of a threat Zarqawi really is.


No. The topic of discussion is "Pentagon acknowledges fabricating a 'Zarqawi Legend'". Anything else is second to that. Don't try and ignore any Government wrongdoing here, Westpoint23.

[edit on 23-4-2006 by Code_Burger]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Code_Burger
No. The topic of discussion is "Pentagon acknowledges fabricating a 'Zarqawi Legend'".


Which according to the article means that the Pentagon exaggerated the threat of Zarqawi, correct? Do you really want to continue playing -Who can word the title in the most misleading way possible without being totally false-?

[edit on 23-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Which according to the article means that the Pentagon exaggerated the threat of Zarqawi, correct?


Yes it does, but that's not the point at all, is it? The point is you left out any mention of fabrication or 'hyping up' on behalf of the Government. "How much of a threat Zarqawi is" is a complete sanitisation.


Originally posted by WestPoint23
Do you really want to continue playing -Who can word the title in the most misleading way possible without being totally false-?
[edit on 23-4-2006 by WestPoint23]


Well you may be playing that game, but I'm not. I quoted that title from the initial article provided by the author of this thread.

Thank you. Good Bye.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Code_Burger
Yes it does, but that's not the point at all, is it? The point is you left out any mention of fabrication or 'hyping up' on behalf of the Government.


What do you call “...the Pentagon exaggerated the threat of Zarqawi...”? To me this is sufficient in explaining the purpose of the article. But I do recognize one flaw in it, it’s not sensational enough, my apologies.


Originally posted by Code_Burger
Well you may be playing that game, but I'm not


If you say so.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by Code_Burger
Yes it does, but that's not the point at all, is it? The point is you left out any mention of fabrication or 'hyping up' on behalf of the Government.


What do you call “...the Pentagon exaggerated the threat of Zarqawi...”? To me this is sufficient in explaining the purpose of the article.


You said that after I had already called you out. I wasn't talking about that at all.


Originally posted by WestPoint23
the topic of discussion is how much of a threat Zarqawi really is.


I was obviously referring to that ^ (which I quoted you on a couple of posts up). Are you on Heroin or something?


Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by Code_Burger
Well you may be playing that game, but I'm not


If you say so.


I do say so. Read the article provided in the initial post, it's right there. I quoted it word for word. You just made something up, which, like I rightly said in my previous post, is a complete sanitisation.


Originally posted by WestPoint23
the topic of discussion is how much of a threat Zarqawi really is.


Whoops. So what's more accurate then, quoting the article word for word, or just making something up and leaving out the most important point?

I'm not going to bother replying to any more of your posts in this thread, because I really can't be #ed to keep repeating myself over and over again.




[edit on 23-4-2006 by Code_Burger]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Code_Burger
Whoops. So what's more accurate then, quoting the article word for word, or just making something up and leaving out the most important point?


The title of the liked article is suppose to mean something to me? Its contents and purpose are much more important. For further details go read this thread. Now, I posted what these articles are all publishing, and that is that “...the Pentagon exaggerated the threat of Zarqawi...”. The most important point which you highlighted earlier is very much incorporated into that statement.
So, its been fun, but I have to go, have a nice day.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23


Originally posted by yanchek
The title of this thread is OK.


How so? Nowhere on the presented information accompanying the post is such asserted.


Compare it with a Title of one of the threads on WOT forum which said "Mission Acomplished" and you'll get your answer.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by yanchek
Compare it with a Title of one of the threads on WOT forum which said "Mission Acomplished" and you'll get your answer.


That does not answer my question, why is the title of this thread “OK”? What specific information pertaining to this thread or topic states that the title is correct?



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
That does not answer my question, why is the title of this thread “OK”? What specific information pertaining to this thread or topic states that the title is correct?


Read the title slowly.

Pentagon Admits, No such THING as Zarqawi.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   


Pentagon Admits, No such thing as Zarqawi.


The above is the actual title of this thread. The cited article does not say this. The Pentagon did not say this. Why write a title that is inaccurate unless you are trying to trick the readers. You were clearly either hoping that no one would read the article or you yourself did not read the article. If not, you would have changed the title and apologized when you discovered your error.

Moderator: The article is clearly worthy of discussion but I have to ask; why have you not required the threads author to reword the title? Wouldn’t something like “Pentagon Admits to exaggerating Zarqawi’s role in Iraq” be more reasonable?



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555



Pentagon Admits, No such thing as Zarqawi.


The above is the actual title of this thread. The cited article does not say this. The Pentagon did not say this. Why write a title that is inaccurate unless you are trying to trick the readers.



because syrian does this for her propaganda....sorry SS....but you just did what the pentagon did and that is over indulge the title of this thread, just as the pentagon did about zarqawi's role.

should we listen to propagandists who employs the very same tactic?


sorry syrian, have to throw you in with the lions


[edit on 23-4-2006 by XphilesPhan]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join